Dodged it because it's irrelevant. I don't live where this guy does. But if I did, I'd take care of my obligation to pay the tax for fire services.

The point is, this guy has nobody to blame but himself. $75 a year v. all his possessions and his home. Forgive me for being insensitive.

He lived outside the city limits but was still offered protection. Offered fire protection for $6.25 a month. Paid more than that every week for a case of Natural Light.

Again, forgive me for being insensitive.

Yep, this is correct.

CDT, you're pretty cavalier when it comes to firefighters fighting a fire they are not contracted to fight, just because they should (in your opinion).

Let's say they go in there, defying their charter, and fight this fire. What happens if one of them gets injured? I guess then you'd be bitching about the inhumane Worker's Compensation bureau denying their claims because they had a moral imperative to go in and fight that fire, even though they had no legal protections when they went in there.

I don't think anyone is asking them to run into the burning trailer to save the cat. But it wouldn't have been a lot to ask for them to turn on the damn hose.

And, under what pretense are you assuming that BWC would deny the claim of a fire fighter who was injured while in uniform fighting a fire?

Exactly. I'm not saying the should risk their lives for his 1992 McDonalds NBA Dream Team cups. But we all know damn well if their was aperson or manybe even an animal at risk they would have no qualms about running into a fire. That's probably why they became firefighters, to help people.

Because Cranick hadn't paid his fee, firefighters doused the border of his neighbor's property to protect that house in case the flames spread, but wouldn't help him. He lost all his possessions, plus three dogs and a cat.

So they responded, saw on their list that he hadn't paid the fee, and decided to watch the house burn?

Motherscratcher wrote:I don't think anyone is asking them to run into the burning trailer to save the cat. But it wouldn't have been a lot to ask for them to turn on the damn hose.

And, under what pretense are you assuming that BWC would deny the claim of a fire fighter who was injured while in uniform fighting a fire?

The pretense that the fire department operates under a governmental charter, which governs the actions they can take while being protected by their union/employment contract. I'll wait for a counterexample, but I don't know of any BWC that give protections for workers when they are committing acts outside of their job descriptions. Putting out a fire that their fire department isn't contracted to fight is an example that is incontrovertible.

Motherscratcher wrote:I don't think anyone is asking them to run into the burning trailer to save the cat. But it wouldn't have been a lot to ask for them to turn on the damn hose.

Sets a precedent to the other people paying for the service. It says that they don't need to pay in order to receive assistance.

It's hypothetical, but if people in this area stop paying for the service, then they may fall in to a "dead zone", so to speak, and not be extended fire fighter services from any nearby community. That could be very detrimental everybody, especially the people who contributed the way they were supposed to.

Like most everything else, this'll be interpreted one of two ways. The way I look at it and the way you and CDT look at it. I say the guy should have paid his $6.25 a month and took care of it. You guys say "It's $75 a year, is that really that important to let a man's house burn?"

I'm for the proactive.

I totally get the "need to pay or nobody will" angle. It's tough and Wiz made some very good arguments upthread. I guess I'm tentatively in the "put out the fire and bill the guy" camp. That's what firefighters are trained to do. They should do it.

When a doctor has someone brought to the ER having a heart attack, he doesn't root through his pockets to see how much cash he has or what type of insurance. He saves the guy's life and sends him a bill. I understand the most times the bill never gets paid, but he does it anyway. Because that's what he does. Every time.

But I do get the argument that the guy assumed the risk when he didn't pay, and I don't think it's an unreasonable one.

What I'm absolutely NOT buying the the "why should the firefighters put their own lives in such great peril, risking everything they know and love, to courageously fight the fire in trailer of this evil, horrible, man who wouldn't give them $75?" bullshit that jfiling threw out there.

exiledbuckeye wrote:Also, do they stand there and let the house burn if there's a person trapped inside? How far do they take this?

I think it's safe to assume they would do everything in their power to save any human life, regardless of who's on the "save this trailer" list. They would probably do this despite the fact that they would apparently be left uncompensated through workman's comp should the bed above the dining room table fall on them during such an act of heroism.

Motherscratcher wrote:I don't think anyone is asking them to run into the burning trailer to save the cat. But it wouldn't have been a lot to ask for them to turn on the damn hose.

And, under what pretense are you assuming that BWC would deny the claim of a fire fighter who was injured while in uniform fighting a fire?

The pretense that the fire department operates under a governmental charter, which governs the actions they can take while being protected by their union/employment contract. I'll wait for a counterexample, but I don't know of any BWC that give protections for workers when they are committing acts outside of their job descriptions. Putting out a fire that their fire department isn't contracted to fight is an example that is incontrovertible.

Sorry for 3 posts in a row.

I don't know dude. I'm not an expert of BWC. But don't try to tell me that a firefighter, who is at a fire, that they got to on the fire truck, in their firefighter gear, is "committing acts outside of their job descriptions."

Motherscratcher wrote:I don't know dude. I'm not an expert of BWC. But don't try to tell me that a firefighter, who is at a fire, that they got to on the fire truck, in their firefighter gear, is "committing acts outside of their job descriptions."

You throw around words like "incontrovertible" fairly easily.

How is this difficult. The truck shows up at a fire they aren't allowed to fight. I don't know why I can understand that and other people can't.

Motherscratcher wrote:I don't think anyone is asking them to run into the burning trailer to save the cat. But it wouldn't have been a lot to ask for them to turn on the damn hose.

And, under what pretense are you assuming that BWC would deny the claim of a fire fighter who was injured while in uniform fighting a fire?

The pretense that the fire department operates under a governmental charter, which governs the actions they can take while being protected by their union/employment contract. I'll wait for a counterexample, but I don't know of any BWC that give protections for workers when they are committing acts outside of their job descriptions. Putting out a fire that their fire department isn't contracted to fight is an example that is incontrovertible.

Sorry for 3 posts in a row.

I don't know dude. I'm not an expert of BWC. But don't try to tell me that a firefighter, who is at a fire, that they got to on the fire truck, in their firefighter gear, is "committing acts outside of their job descriptions."

You throw around words like "incontrovertible" fairly easily.

+1

CFD responds to fires that are outside of Columbus all the time, despite the fact they're not obligated or contracted to do. 2 months ago both CFD and Galloway's VFD responded to a fire near Westland high school (in Galloway), 2 CFD men were injured and had to be taken to the hospital. You're telling me they wouldn't be covered for doing their job?.......Laughable.

Motherscratcher wrote:I don't know dude. I'm not an expert of BWC. But don't try to tell me that a firefighter, who is at a fire, that they got to on the fire truck, in their firefighter gear, is "committing acts outside of their job descriptions."

You throw around words like "incontrovertible" fairly easily.

How is this difficult. The truck shows up at a fire they aren't allowed to fight. I don't know why I can understand that and other people can't.

Motherscratcher wrote: When a doctor has someone brought to the ER having a heart attack, he doesn't root through his pockets to see how much cash he has or what type of insurance. He saves the guy's life and sends him a bill. I understand the most times the bill never gets paid, but he does it anyway. Because that's what he does. Every time.

Firefighters don't take a Hippocratic oath. I don't know what they have to repeat at the swearing in ceremony. I don't personally know any firefighters.

I think it's safe to assume that if there were any reason to believe that a human being was inside the trailer, they would have done whatever they could. It's unfortunate that four animals died, especially three dogs. I'm an animal lover, so this angers me, but the fact remains. $6.25/month and this can all be avoided.

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

jb wrote:WTF else political are we gonna talk about that you, I , OJ ; everyone, couldn't peg canned responses into ? No one has an open mind about shit anymore.

At least this content has the opportunity to induct into why we believe our philosophies.

This, and I don't think that will ever change.

Few more things in an effort to reduce quote boxes. Both the question of the fire spreading and why they charge $75 is addressed in the article. They did make sure it would not spread, and the guy falls outside of the South Falls(or whatever) city limits. So he doesn't pay taxes directly to the city, and they extend the service at a charge. They are under no obligation to even do that...

If the other guy, whose trailer they made sure to protect, paid, I am sure this guy knew exactly what not paying could result in...

OJ, sorry to post and run.

Fuckin' work. ;-)

I think this is interesting because it cuts to the core of the very purpose of government or even civilization. You come off as a laerned cat. Curious as to where your philosophies on government spring from and a few thoughts on the legitimate purpose of government, if there even are any.

Didn't want you to hink I pussed out. So long as the 6 shooters sit idol with the long-timers and shit isn't ignant, I love this stuff.

Looking forward to seeing some things your way if they make sense. You might be surprised. Or I might sstill think you are a wing nut. ;-).

IMO the current level of decorum is appropriate. It isn't condescending elitism/country club fake kindness, and it is a few steps away from flaming partisanship.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

exiledbuckeye wrote:Also, do they stand there and let the house burn if there's a person trapped inside? How far do they take this?

Read the rest of the thread, many of the participants have addressed this point. If someone, and as much as I think my dog is better then most people she is not a "someone", is in the house you fight the fire.

JB my thinking is some combination of nature/nurture. My parents are both Republicans, but I would say I am far more conservative. I am a political and history junkie, read as much as I can tolerate from the other side(left), and tend to think I use rational(brain, 1+1=2, pay for service->receive service, sometimes uncaringly logical) as opposed to emotional (heart, fairness, guilt, other adjectives I feel are negative).

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Motherscratcher wrote:I don't know dude. I'm not an expert of BWC. But don't try to tell me that a firefighter, who is at a fire, that they got to on the fire truck, in their firefighter gear, is "committing acts outside of their job descriptions."

You throw around words like "incontrovertible" fairly easily.

How is this difficult. The truck shows up at a fire they aren't allowed to fight. I don't know why I can understand that and other people can't.

Maybe you're just smarter than everyone else.

I doubt that. It's more of I try and boil the situation down to the bare facts, instead of arguing from emotions.

Motherscratcher wrote:I don't know dude. I'm not an expert of BWC. But don't try to tell me that a firefighter, who is at a fire, that they got to on the fire truck, in their firefighter gear, is "committing acts outside of their job descriptions."

You throw around words like "incontrovertible" fairly easily.

How is this difficult. The truck shows up at a fire they aren't allowed to fight. I don't know why I can understand that and other people can't.

Maybe you're just smarter than everyone else.

I doubt that. It's more of I try and boil the situation down to the bare facts, instead of arguing from emotions.

When is that last time the city you reside in took money out of your paycheck to fund fire and police services?

CDT, are you implying in some strange way that b/c many/most people pay their city taxes EOY/tax time that we somehow don't "really" pay for these services? B/C I gotta tell ya, WOW WTF man. I think, and I could be wrong, you are just trying to say hey most people don't pay until after the fact? Which, yeah you're correct, but it is an apples to oranges comparison, and again as said above people have a choice, they don't have to live in Port a Potty, USA.

BTW I enjoyed the Volunteer State reference, and technically it is a valid point.

Hopefully this situation brings about a solution so this doesn't happen again, the more I think about it the more a hefty fine for being late on payment sounds reasonable.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

Fucking Marlboro "Golds"..... I was at the gas station and I asked for a pack of Lights and the guy goes "you mean Golds?", I wanted to call him an asshole.

I smoke Marlboro Menthols.

I've had 5 cigarettes since 11 am. Sucks.

How many have you had so far? Dude, does this wind down thing really work? My wife smoked for 8 years and finally stopped with the patch supplemented by the gum. Seemed like the biggest thing it took though was will power. She hasnt smoked in about 5 years. No my wife isnt 10 years older than I, she just started smoking pretty seriously at 14. That's what happens when you grow up in Pittsburgh

When is that last time the city you reside in took money out of your paycheck to fund fire and police services?

CDT, are you implying in some strange way that b/c many/most people pay their city taxes EOY/tax time that we somehow don't "really" pay for these services? B/C I gotta tell ya, WOW WTF man. I think, and I could be wrong, you are just trying to say hey most people don't pay until after the fact? Which, yeah you're correct, but it is an apples to oranges comparison, and again as said above people have a choice, they don't have to live in Port a Potty, USA.

BTW I enjoyed the Volunteer State reference, and technically it is a valid point.

Hopefully this situation brings about a solution so this doesn't happen again, the more I think about it the more a hefty fine for being late on payment sounds reasonable.

I know how taxes work, FUDU, and i'm not saying most people pay after the fact. You misunderstood me.

Here's an update on the story, with way more facts than we were originally given.

“It’s all because of me,” Cranick, 21 and unemployed, kept repeating. He had left the trash burning unattended in barrels in front of the house while he took a shower. Now his family’s house in this patch of rural Tennessee was ash. “I take full responsibility.”

But the debate over who’s responsible for the destruction at the Cranick place is no simple one. When Cranick called 911, the dispatcher told him that she’d send help right away. Ten minutes later, she said firefighters were not coming after all — because the family had not paid the city its annual $75 fire protection fee.

Fire engines did arrive at the Cranick property, but only because the flames from the barrels were spreading to their neighbor’s cornfield. And that family was paid up.

The firefighters protected the neighbor’s field and let the Cranicks’ home burn.

So, apparently the firefighters didn't show up and watch the guy's trailer burn down, they weren't dispatched until the neighbor's property was being jeopardized. I'd say most of the arguments on both sides in this thread became moot.

And I'd hope it goes without saying that I don't wish anyone's property to be destroyed under any circumstances; nor do I feel any schadenfreude because he didn't pay his fire tax. I can't see how any decent person would take joy in the burning of someone's house. This story is nothing short of a tragedy; we just differ in who is to blame.